DOCSLIB.ORG

Principles and Practices in the 21St Century

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Principles and Practices in the 21St Century A1457 Cooperatives: Principles and practices in the 21st century Kimberly A. Zeuli and Robert Cropp ABOUT THE COVER IMAGE: The “twin pines” is a familiar symbol for cooperatives in the United States.The Cooperative League of the USA, which eventually became the National Cooperative Business Association (NCBA), adopted it as their logo in 1922.The pine tree is an ancient symbol of endurance and immor- tality.The two pines represent mutual cooperation—people helping people. C OOPERATIVES: C Publication notes ii ont Chapter 1 1 An introduction to cooperatives Chapter 2 5 ents Historical development of cooperatives throughout the world Chapter 3 15 Cooperative history, trends, and laws in the United States Chapter 4 27 Cooperative classification Chapter 5 39 Alternative business models in the United States Chapter 6 49 Cooperative roles, responsibilities, and communication Chapter 7 59 Cooperative financial management Chapter 8 69 Procedures for organizing a cooperative Chapter 9 77 A summary of cooperative benefits and limitations Notes 81 Glossary 85 Cooperative resources 89 PRINCIPLES & PRACTICES IN THE 21ST CENTURY i Kimberly Zeuli and Robert Cropp, Assistant Publication notes Professor and Professor Emeritus in the This publication is the fourth and most extensive Department of Agricultural and Applied revision of the Marvin A. Schaars’ text, Cooperatives, Economics, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Principles and Practices, University of Wisconsin are responsible for all of the editing and most Extension—Madison, Publication A1457, July 1980. of the revised text. The following individuals What has come to be known simply as “the also contributed to various chapters: Schaars book,” was originally written in 1936 by David Erickson, Director of Member Relations, Chris L. Christensen, Asher Hobson, Henry Bakken, Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives R.K. Froker, and Marvin Schaars, all faculty in the E.G. Nadeau, Director of Research, Planning and Department of Agricultural Economics, University Development, Cooperative Development of Wisconsin—Madison. Since its first publication, Services the Schaars book has served as a basic reference for cooperative members and leaders, cooperative David Trechter, Professor, University of Wisconsin— instructors and development specialists, and River Falls students of cooperatives throughout the United Richard Vilstrup, Professor Emeritus, States and world. It has been translated into Department of Animal Science and several languages. Agricultural and Applied Economics, Although the Schaars book has been out of print University of Wisconsin—Madison for some time, the University of Wisconsin Center This revision would not have been possible for Cooperatives (UWCC) continues to receive without generous funding from The Cooperative regular requests for copies. Its straightforward, Foundation, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. basic information on the organization, structure, financing, and management of cooperatives is as needed and relevant today as ever.The revisions in this version, which reflect over two decades of learning about cooperative development as well as new cooperative laws and ways of doing business, will hopefully make it even more useful. Although we focus on cooperative businesses in the United States, and draw most of our references from the agricultural sector, most of the book’s content is pertinent to cooperatives anywhere, in any sector. Readers are encouraged to seek out other publications that deal more extensively with cooperative laws in their own states and countries, and provide more detailed information on consumer, service and worker-owned cooperatives and credit unions. ii C OOPERATIVES: CHAPTER 1 An introduction t roups of individuals around the world and According to the International Co-operative throughout time have worked together in Alliance (ICA): a cooperative is an autonomous asso- Gpursuit of common goals. Examples of coop- ciation of persons united voluntarily to meet their eration, or collective action, can be traced back to common economic, social, and cultural needs and our prehistoric predecessors who recognized the aspirations through a jointly owned and democrati- advantages of hunting, gathering, and living in cally controlled enterprise. Cooperative leaders groups rather than on their own. around the world recognize the ICA, a non-govern- mental organization with over 230 member organ- Although the word “coopera- izations from over 100 countries, as a leading tive” can be applied to many authority on cooperative definition and values.2 different types of group activities, in this publication The ICA definition recognizes the essential the term is used to reference element of cooperatives: membership is voluntary. a formal business model, Coercion is the antithesis of cooperation. Persons which has relatively recent compelled to act contrary to their wishes are not origins.The earliest coopera- truly cooperating.True cooperation with others tive associations were arises from a belief in mutual help; it can’t be created in Europe and North dictated. In authentic cooperatives, persons join o coopera The first signs of America during the 17th and voluntarily and have the freedom to quit the coop- organized hunting 18th centuries.These associ- erative at any time.3 The forced collectives preva- activity based around communities are ations were precursors to lent in the former Soviet Union, for example, were associated with cooperatives.The pioneers not true cooperatives. Homo erectus, of the Rochdale Society in modern human Another widely accepted cooperative definition is 19th-century England are ancestors who lived the one adopted by the United States Department between 500,000 and celebrated for launching the of Agriculture (USDA) in 1987: A cooperative is a 1.5 million years ago modern cooperative in Africa. user-owned, user-controlled business that distributes movement.The unique con- tiv benefits on the basis of use.This definition captures tribution of early cooperative organizers in what are generally considered the three primary England was codifying a guiding set of principles cooperative principles: user ownership, user es and instigating the creation of new laws that control, and proportional distribution of benefits. helped foster cooperative business development. Today, cooperatives are found in nearly all coun- The “user-owner” principle implies that the people tries. Chapters 2 and 3 trace the remarkable history who use the co-op (members) help finance the co- of cooperative development internationally and in op and therefore, own the co-op. Members are the United States. responsible for providing at least some of the cooperative’s capital.The equity capital contribu- tion of each member should be in equal propor- What is a cooperative? tion to that member’s use (patronage) of the co- The cooperative model has been adapted to op.This shared financing creates joint ownership numerous and varied businesses. In 1942 Ivan (part of the ICA cooperative definition). Emelianoff, a respected cooperative scholar, The “user-control” concept means that members of remarked that “the diversity of cooperatives is kalei- the co-op govern the business directly by voting doscopic and their variability is literally infinite.”1 As on significant and long-term business decisions a consequence of this diversity, no universally and indirectly through their representatives on the accepted definition of a cooperative exists.Two defi- board of directors. Cooperative statutes and nitions, however, are commonly used. bylaws usually dictate that only active co-op members (those who use the co-op) can become voting directors, although non-members some- times serve on boards in a non-voting, advisory PRINCIPLES & PRACTICES IN THE 21ST CENTURY 1 capacity. Advisory directors are becoming more Co-op benefits may include better prices for goods common in large agricultural cooperatives in the and services, improved services, and dependable United States, where complex financial and sources of inputs and markets for outputs. Most business operations require the expertise of finan- cooperatives also realize annual net profits, all or cial and industry experts. Only co-op members can part of which are returned to members in propor- vote to elect their board of directors and on other tion to their patronage (thus, they are aptly called cooperative actions. patronage refunds). Cooperatives can also return a portion of their profits as dividends on investment. Voting rights are generally tied to membership In the United States, however, federal and most status—usually one-member, one-vote—and not state statutes set an 8 percent maximum on to the level of investment in or patronage of the annual dividend payments.The purpose of these cooperative. Cooperative law in a number of states limits is to assure that the benefits of a cooperative in the United States and in other countries, accrue to those who use it most rather than to however, also permits proportional voting. Instead those who may have the most invested; the impor- of one vote per member, voting rights are based tance of capital is subordinated. on the volume of business the member transacted the previous year with the cooperative. Generally, Today, some co-op leaders and scholars consider however, there is also a maximum number of votes this dividend restriction arbitrary and harmful to any member may cast to prevent control by a cooperatives. From their perspective, the 8 percent minority of members. For
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HISTORY and DEVELOPMENT of AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVES in OHIO DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements F
    HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVES IN OHIO DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By WILLIAM TAFT RICHIE, B. S., M. S. The Ohio State University 1958 Approved by: Adviser Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to all the people who have helped to make this manuscript possible. A special word of appre­ ciation goes to Dr. George P. Henning, of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, for his guidance and supervision. I also wish to thank Dr. Ralph W. Sherman and Dr. Virgil R. Wertz for their suggestions and assistance. My wife, Sadie, has been a source of inestimable help and encouragement at all times. To her I am indebted for the typing of this manuscript. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION................................. 1 Purpose and Scope of Study.............. Previous Studies........ 6 Source of Data ..................... 8 II. ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS OF COOPERATIVES................................ 10 III. STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIONS.............. lk- IV. DEVELOPMENT OF FARMER COOPERATIVES IN OHIO.. 21 Ohio Farmers Late in Organizing Cooperatives............................. 22 Farm Organizations............ 26 Number, Membership and Volume of Business................................. 39 V. DAIRY COOPERATIVES............... 57 Early Developments.......... 57 Some Factors Affecting Development and Growth................................... 61 Background Information of Some of the Associations Operating in Ohio Milksheds. 67 Ohio Milk Producers Federation.......... 82 Statistics and Trends in Dairy Coopera­ tives.................................... 82 VI. FRUIT AND VEGETABLE COOPERATIVES............ 89 Development of Fruit Cooperatives in Ohio..................................... 90 Development of Vegetable Cooperatives.... 92 Statistics and Trends...................
    [Show full text]
  • Antitrust Status of Farmer Cooperatives
    USDA Antitrust Status of Farmer Cooperatives: United States Department of Agriculture The Story of the Capper- Rural Business- Volstead Act Cooperative Service Cooperative Information Report 59 Abstract The Capper-Volstead Act provides a limited exemption from antitrust liability for agricultural producers who market the products they produce on a cooperative basis. Without Capper-Volstead, farmers who agree among themselves on the pric es they'll accept for their products and other terms of trade would risk being held in violation of antitrust law. Even with the exemption, agricultural producers are not free to unduly enhance the prices they charge, consolidate with or collaborate in anticompetitive conduct with nonproducers, or engage in conduct with no legitimate business purpose that is intended to reduce competition. Keywords: cooperative, antitrust, Capper-Volstead Act, law ________________________________________ Antitrust Status of Farmer Cooperatives: The Story of the Capper-Volstead Act Donald A. Frederick Program Leader Law, Policy & Governance Rural Business-Cooperative Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Cooperative Information Report 59 September 2002 RBS publications and information are available on the Internet. The RBS w eb site is: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs Preface Antitrust law poses a special challenge to agricultural marketing associations. Certain conduct by independent business people-- agreeing on prices, terms of sale, and whom to sell to--violates the Sherman Act and other antitrust statutes. And these are the very types of collaborative activities that agricultural producers conduct through their marketing cooperatives. Since 1922, the Capper-Volstead Act has provided a limited antitrust exemption for agricultural marketing associations. Producers, through qualifying associations, can agree on prices and other terms of sale, select the extent of their joint marketing activity, agree on common marketing practices with other cooperatives, and achieve substantial market share and influence.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. William King and the Co-Operator, 1828-1830
    Dr. William King AN!) THK ,Cp-operator i828^i83o I Edited by T. W. MERCER, nn-: CO-OPERATIVE UNWN Liv Hfornia MO!,VOAKE HOCSI', HANOV«R STRLl.T onal ity Dr. WILLIAM KING AND THE CO-OPERATOR 1828-1830 Dk. William King. From a Photoiiraph by his friend, Mons. L. Leuliette, i Frontispiece, Dr. WILLIAM KING AND THE CO-OPERATOR 1828-1830 With Introduction and Xotes by T. W. MERCER MANCHESTER: The Co-operative Union Limitku, Holvoake House. Hanover Street. 1922. "Co-operation is a voluntar}' act, and all the power in the world cannot make it compulsory ; nor is it desir- able that it should depend upon any power but its own." —The Co-operator, 1829. 1 C7S PREFATORY NOTE. Fifty-Fourth Annual \Y/HEN it was agreed that the Co-operative Congress should be held at Brighton of in June, 1922, the General Publications Committee the Co-operative Union decided that the time was " Co-operator," a small opportune to . reprint The co-operative periodical, first published in Brighton by Dr. William King nearly a century ago. In consequence of that decision, the present volume has been prepared. It includes a faithful reprint of " Co-operator a the twenty-eight numbers of The " ; sketch of Dr. King's Ufe and teaching, containing notes information not previously published ; and a few contributed by the present writer. Several letters written by Dr. King to other early co-operators are also here reprinted. In "The Co-operator" both spelling and punctuation have been left as they are in the original edition, but a few obvious printer's errors have been corrected.
    [Show full text]
  • A Day in the Life of Cooperative America
    A DAY IN THE LIFE OF COOPERATIVE AMERICA A Project of the National Co-op Month Committee COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLES Cooperatives follow seven internationally recognized principles as adopted in 1995 by the International Cooperative Alliance. The National Cooperative Business Association lists these as: 1. Voluntary and Open Membership Cooperatives are voluntary organizations, open to all persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership, without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination. 2. Democratic Member Control Cooperatives are democratic organizations controlled by their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary cooperatives, members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and cooperatives at other levels are organized in a democratic manner. 3. Member Economic Participation Members contribute equitably to, and democratically control, the capital of their cooperative. At least part of that capital is usually the common property of the cooperative. They usually receive limited compensation, if any, on capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of the following purposes: developing the cooperative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of which at least would be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions with the cooperative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership. 4. Autonomy and Independence Cooperatives are autonomous, self-help organizations controlled by their members. If they enter into agreements with other organizations, including governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure democratic control by their members and maintain their cooperative autonomy.
    [Show full text]
  • For All the People
    Praise for For All the People John Curl has been around the block when it comes to knowing work- ers’ cooperatives. He has been a worker owner. He has argued theory and practice, inside the firms where his labor counts for something more than token control and within the determined, but still small uni- verse where labor rents capital, using it as it sees fit and profitable. So his book, For All the People: The Hidden History of Cooperation, Cooperative Movements, and Communalism in America, reached expectant hands, and an open mind when it arrived in Asheville, NC. Am I disappointed? No, not in the least. Curl blends the three strands of his historical narrative with aplomb, he has, after all, been researching, writing, revising, and editing the text for a spell. Further, I am certain he has been responding to editors and publishers asking this or that. He may have tired, but he did not give up, much inspired, I am certain, by the determination of the women and men he brings to life. Each of his subtitles could have been a book, and has been written about by authors with as many points of ideological view as their titles. Curl sticks pretty close to the narrative line written by worker own- ers, no matter if they came to work every day with a socialist, laborist, anti-Marxist grudge or not. Often in the past, as with today’s worker owners, their firm fails, a dream to manage capital kaput. Yet today, as yesterday, the democratic ideals of hundreds of worker owners support vibrantly profitable businesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Articles Cooperative Enterprise As an Antimonopoly Strategy
    ART 1 - COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (DO NOT DELETE) 10/22/2019 4:02 PM Articles Cooperative Enterprise as an Antimonopoly Strategy Sandeep Vaheesan* & Nathan Schneider† ABSTRACT After decades of neglect, antitrust is once again a topic of public debate. Proponents of reviving antitrust have called for abandoning the narrow consumer welfare objective and embracing a broader set of objectives. One essential element that has been overlooked thus far is the ownership structure of the firm itself. The dominant model of investor- owned business and associated philosophy of shareholder wealth maximization exacerbate the pernicious effects of market power. In contrast, cooperative ownership models can mitigate the effects of monopoly and oligopoly, as well as advance the interests of consumers, workers, small business owners, and citizens. The promotion of fair competition among large firms should be paired with support for democratic cooperation within firms. Antitrust law has had a complicated history and relationship with cooperative enterprise. Corporations threatened by cooperatives have used the antitrust laws to frustrate the growth of these alternative businesses. To *Legal Director, Open Markets Institute. †Assistant Professor, Department of Media Studies, University of Colorado Boulder. The authors thank Lauren Bridges, Michelle Meagher, Sanjukta Paul, and Ganesh Sitaraman for thoughtful feedback on earlier drafts of this Article. 1 ART 1 - COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (DO NOT DELETE) 10/22/2019 4:02 PM 2 PENN STATE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 124:1 insulate cooperatives from the antitrust threat, Congress has enacted exemptions to protect cooperative entities, notably a general immunity for farm cooperatives in the 1922 Capper-Volstead Act. As part of an agenda to tame corporate monopoly, all three branches of the federal government and the states should revisit these ideas and seek to protect and enable the cooperative model across the economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Cooperative Education Inventory Study
    Cooperative Education Inventory Study By Eklou Amendah & Christina Clamp Center for Co-operatives & CED Southern New Hampshire University February 2014 Prepared for The Cooperative Foundation Table of Contents I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 5 II. Literature: Assessing the need for cooperative education ....................................................................... 6 III. Overview of Co-op Education Organizational Settings ............................................................................ 8 IV. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 10 V. Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 VI. Discussion of the Results ....................................................................................................................... 19 VII. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 24 1. Limitations ....................................................................................................................................... 25 2. Future research ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Dialectical Approach to the Future of Work Narrative
    Work and totality: A dialectical approach to the future of work narrative by Duane Fontaine M.A., Simon Fraser University, 2005 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Under Individualized Interdisciplinary Studies with Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies and Department of Humanities Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences © Duane Fontaine 2021 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Spring 2021 Copyright in this work rests with the author. Please ensure that any reproduction or re-use is done in accordance with the relevant national copyright legislation. Declaration of Committee Name: Duane Fontaine Degree: Doctor of Philosophy Thesis title: Work and totality: A dialectical approach to the future of work narrative Chair: Gary McCarron Committee: Associate Professor, Communication Samir Gandesha Supervisor Associate Professor, Humanities Stephen Duguid Committee Member Professor Emeritus, Humanities Geoffrey Poitras Committee Member Professor, Beedie School of Business Marjorie Griffin Cohen Examiner Professor Emeritus, Political Science and Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies Douglas Moggach External Examiner Emeritus Professor, Political Studies University of Ottawa ii Abstract Our current confluence of global crises points to the very real possibility of systems collapse. These crises will continue to accelerate under capitalism due to its inherent structural contradictions. Capitalism’s profit motive creates its insatiable need for perpetual growth, a growth only achieved through the exploitation of man and nature. Radical systems change is therefore required and only a collective agent can affect this change. While the working class has so far failed to live up to its potential as that collective agent, the human drive to work—to contribute to society and to express itself creatively—will continue to play a primary role in bringing about the required change.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles and Practices in the 21St Century
    A1457 Cooperatives: Principles and practices in the 21st century Kimberly A. Zeuli and Robert Cropp ABOUT THE COVER IMAGE: The “twin pines” is a familiar symbol for cooperatives in the United States.The Cooperative League of the USA, which eventually became the National Cooperative Business Association (NCBA), adopted it as their logo in 1922.The pine tree is an ancient symbol of endurance and immor- tality.The two pines represent mutual cooperation—people helping people. C OOPERATIVES: q Publication notes ii C ont Chapter 1 1 An introduction to cooperatives Chapter 2 5 ents Historical development of cooperatives throughout the world Chapter 3 15 Cooperative history, trends, and laws in the United States Chapter 4 27 Cooperative classification Chapter 5 39 Alternative business models in the United States Chapter 6 49 Cooperative roles, responsibilities, and communication Chapter 7 59 Cooperative financial management Chapter 8 69 Procedures for organizing a cooperative Chapter 9 77 A summary of cooperative benefits and limitations Notes 81 Glossary 85 Cooperative resources 89 PRINCIPLES & PRACTICES IN THE 21ST CENTURY i Kimberly Zeuli and Robert Cropp, Assistant Publication notes Professor and Professor Emeritus in the This publication is the fourth and most extensive Department of Agricultural and Applied revision of the Marvin A. Schaars’ text, Cooperatives, Economics, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Principles and Practices, University of Wisconsin are responsible for all of the editing and most Extension—Madison, Publication A1457, July 1980. of the revised text. The following individuals What has come to be known simply as “the also contributed to various chapters: Schaars book,” was originally written in 1936 by David Erickson, Director of Member Relations, Chris L.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    Bibliography Aal, A (2008) ‘The Egyptian cooperative movement: between state and market’, in Develtere, Pollet and Wanyama (eds) (2008) Cooperating Out of Poverty: The Renaissance of the African Co-operative Movement, Geneva: International Labour Organisation All-Party Parliamentary Group for Building Societies and Financial Mutuals (2006) Windfalls or Shortfalls: The True Cost of Demutualisation, London: Mutuo Apthorpe, R and Gasper, D (1982) ‘Policy evaluation and meta-evaluation: The case of rural co-operatives’, World Development, 10(8): 651–668 Armitage, S and Kirk, P (1994) ‘The performance of proprietary compared with mutual life offices’, Service Industries Journal, 14(2): 238–261 Attwood, D and Bhaviskar, B (1988) Who Shares? Co-operatives and Rural Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press Aubrun, R (1915) Mutual Aid Societies in France, Exposition Universelle de San Francisco Axelrod, R (1984) The Evolution of Co-operation, New York: Basic Books Banturaki, J (2000) Cooperatives and Poverty Alleviation, Dar es Salaam: Tema Publishers Baron, M-L (2007) ‘Defining the frontiers of the firm through property rights allocation: The case of the French retailer co-operative Leclerc’, Review of Social Economy, LXV, 3: 293–317 Beito, D (1990) ‘Mutual aid for social welfare: The case of American fraternal societies’, in Critical Review, 4(4): 709–736 Beveridge, W (1948) Voluntary Action: A Report on the Methods of Social Advance, London: George Allen and Unwin Bibby, A and Shaw, L (eds) (2005) Making a Difference: Co-operative Solutions
    [Show full text]
  • Le Paradigme Coopératif : Une Matrice Philosophique Dévoilant L'homo Cooperatus Pour Une Oikonomia Renouvelée
    Le paradigme coopératif : une matrice philosophique dévoilant l’Homo cooperatus pour une oikonomia renouvelée Thèse André Martin Doctorat en philosophie de l’Université Laval offert en extension à l’Université de Sherbrooke Philosophiae Doctor (Ph.D.) Faculté des lettres et sciences humaines Université de Sherbrooke Sherbrooke, Canada Faculté de philosophie Université Laval Québec, Canada © André Martin, 2016 RÉSUMÉ La présente thèse porte sur des postulats philosophiques qui fondent l’activité coopérative. La coopérative est une association de personnes réunies sur une base volontaire afin de satisfaire des aspirations et des besoins d’ordre économique, social et culturel par le biais d’une entreprise collective où le pouvoir est exercé démocratiquement. Une représentation particulière de l’être l’humain, un cadre normatif spécifique et des finalités existentielles singulières se dégagent de cette définition. Ainsi, de la coopérative émerge une autre vision du monde. Par conséquent, elle contraste avec le paradigme dominant actuel de type économiste, qui base toute sa praxis sur la logique interne de l’homo œconomicus et des valeurs qui transcendent cette posture héritée du libéralisme classique et confirmée par le nouveau libéralisme du 20e siècle. Hautement influencé par cette représentation du monde, l’Occident est toujours aux prises avec les conséquences sociales, économiques, politiques, culturelles que provoque un système dont la chrématistique institutionnalisée tente de subordonner le politique et le du social à l’économique, conduisant ainsi au réductionnisme anthropologique et éthique. Devant l’impasse qu’il suscite, bon nombre d’auteurs en questionnent actuellement la pertinence et la justesse. Cela conduit aussi à l’évaluation d’un changement de paradigme pour notre temps et à l’analyse d’alternatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal, Tax & Accounting Conference
    Legal, Tax & Accounting Conference AGENDA AGENDA National Council of Farmer Cooperatives Legal, Tax & Accounting Conference Hilton New Orleans Riverside, LA February 7-9, 2018 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 7 2:00–4:00pm CFO Roundtable Camp Room Moderated by: Joe Werstak, CFO, United Producers, Inc. This informal roundtable session will include discussion of current issues faced by CFOs. Topics will include cybersecurity, human resources challenges, budgeting and more. 6:00–8:00pm Welcome Reception St. Charles Ballroom Attendees and guests are welcome. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8 6:30-8:00am Buffet Breakfast Grand Ballrooms C&D 8:30-10:15am LTA Conference Participation in NCFC General Session I Grand Ballrooms A&B Chairman’s Welcome President’s Remarks “Facing New Challenges to Security and Privacy” 10:15am Break 10:30-Noon LTA General Session I Grand Salon A Moderated by: Alan Weinstein, Vice President/Tax, CoBank 10:30-10:50am Welcome and Self Introductions 10:50-12:00pm Tax Reform Implications for Cooperatives Featuring: George Benson, Partner, McDermott Will & Emery Marlis Carson, Sr. Vice President & General Counsel, NCFC Bob Glass, Tax Director, Land O’Lakes, Inc. Eric Krienert, Director, Moss Adams, LLP This session will explore the new Section 199A calculations for both farmers and cooperatives; interest deductibility; expensing; and other tax reform provisions. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8—CONTINUED 12:15–1:45pm Industry Relations Luncheon & Awards Program Grand Ballrooms C&D All are welcome to attend Featuring: Chris Stirewalt, Politics Editor, Fox News and Co-host, “I’ll Tell You What” 12:15–1:45pm LTA In-House Luncheons (By invitation only) • CFO Working Group Grand Salon B • In-House General Counsels Marlborough B • Tax Directors Forum Marlborough A 2:00-5:00pm LTA General Session II Grand Salon A Moderated by: David Antoni, Managing Director, KPMG LLP 2:00-3:00pm Cooperative Bylaws and Articles: Top Issues for Your Consideration Featuring: Teree Castanias, CPA Todd Eskelsen, Partner, Schiff Hardin LLP Dan Mott, Shareholder, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A.
    [Show full text]